tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post3935009834662109457..comments2024-01-20T05:01:49.819-07:00Comments on Agora: Taking Down ObamaLysishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-65968644551290069682010-06-12T21:38:21.569-06:002010-06-12T21:38:21.569-06:00Dan,
clearly you haven't read the AZ law and ...Dan,<br /><br />clearly you haven't read the AZ law and know little to nothing about federal immigtation law. There are actually more safe guards against racism in the AZ law than there are in Federal immigration law. Put the cool'aid down.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-21629396230741130242010-06-10T17:44:02.846-06:002010-06-10T17:44:02.846-06:00Lt-33
While i cannot agree with your assessment th...Lt-33<br />While i cannot agree with your assessment that our conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are lost (after listening to both General Petraeus and troops who have been on the ground, I actually believe that the conflict is winnable, but will still take longer than many believe.)I do agree with your assesment on North Korea. I have lived in South Korea for several years, and it is amazing how fragile the dynamic is there. even under the Bush Administration, our troops in South Korea were slowly being withdrawn, and tension on the border was not unusual. In fact both sides often provoked conflict and openly threatened each other. But they rarely attacked. <br />The North's recent attack of the south was totally different, however. It was an act of all out Defiance by the North to torpedo a South Korean cruiser in International waters. one which, according to traditional international law, should be met with a strong show of force, if not a declaration of war. The United State's weak (to say the least) response to the attack, especially after it was proven that the ship was sunk by North Korean submarines, will further embolden a North Korea's military ambitions as an alternative to an economy already struggling under damaging sanctions. <br />North South politics works over there on a basis of "what you can get away with," not any kind of decency or mercy. I highly doubt that the North will stop their attack now that they know that the west will not respond as aggressively as it did under the Bush administration.constantiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423993379701236733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-59277570553810860042010-06-02T16:24:33.914-06:002010-06-02T16:24:33.914-06:00Anonymous:
Excellent point. I would also point o...Anonymous:<br /><br />Excellent point. I would also point out that Federal, State and Local Law Enforcement often, in fact typically, work in concert. Check out any FBI taskforce. The failure of State and Federal agencies to work together was a flaw of the pre- 9/11 mindset. A Flaw President Bush II worked hard to “fix’ through such innovative efforts as the new Home Land Security department.<br /><br />Lt – 33 <br /><br />It is nice to have your ideas at the Agora. Following your line of thought; today in Greek and Roman History we are discussing Marcus Aurelius. I was reminded how valuable to the survival of Rome the soldiers who served at the boarders of the Empire were. In the same way, our heroes stand in defense world freedom on the boarder of Korea. We should also remember that when the central government became obsessed with its own pleasure, power, and priorities, it allowed the wall to crumble. Once that wall of warriors was broken down, Roman Peace was doomed.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-25544298189234484032010-06-02T15:14:32.717-06:002010-06-02T15:14:32.717-06:00As I have been a fellow student of yours, and will...As I have been a fellow student of yours, and will faithfully follow your beliefs, I must strongly agree with #5 "North Korea commits open acts of war against our allies, confident that with Obama as Commander in Chief, they have nothing to fear from America." As Obama acting on behalf of our country, we can expect nothing to really change on the tides of war. He said 'Now is the time to bring our soldiers home!' yet they are still over there, serving a war that I believe to be a lost cause now...Dont get me wrong, I do believe what we did was right at one point in time, but it has dragged on to long. There was a policital cartoon I once read that made me realize how true life is. The drawing had Obama going down hill on a set of skies, wearing a gold medal, the caption said "Due to changes, we had to give Obama the gold medal because no one has been able to go downhill the fastest!" So i strongly agree he has ruined America, and is driving it downward...well lets not give him the option of Nuclear Power...he just might give us a reason to pull off 3-mile islandLt-33https://www.blogger.com/profile/12395682880754588535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-33514948558424993702010-06-02T05:05:59.944-06:002010-06-02T05:05:59.944-06:00I take some issue with truth to power's argume...I take some issue with truth to power's argument that the states can't enforce federal immigration law any more than they can federal tax law.<br /><br />Indeed. However, each state is its own sovereign body with powers and rights in this government. They each have their own tax law, and they can and are obligated to protect their territory as much as the federal government is required to protect the United States. <br /><br />The Federal Government has long let this issue go without taking care of it. It is largely because of the voting issue mentioned earlier upthread in my opinion. Some states are feeling the real pain of it, and, as they have responsibilities to the residents of their state, they are choosing to do what they can. It is an act of desperation.<br /><br />It is this poster's opinion that Americans were far too hasty to shut down George W. Bush's idea of a guest worker program. That is an argument for another time though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-67173684777639350052010-06-01T20:35:03.169-06:002010-06-01T20:35:03.169-06:00Truth to power,
I am glad I could clear up so man...Truth to power,<br /><br />I am glad I could clear up so many of your concerns and thank you for asking for further clarification.<br /><br />1. Of course you can’t tell a person’s religious type by asking – no more than you can tell what country they are a citizen of, hence the need to check everyone! You make my point exactly.<br /><br />2. and 3. You’re right – it is a lawful stop, detention, or arrest, crimes must be proven in court. But the stop cannot be based on race. It’s in the law twice.<br /><br />4. I was not making an attack on copyright. I was just pointing out that your claim that copyright infringement is not a crime was not true. <br /><br />I am asking you to tell me what civil liberty is being encroached by ANY Government when it asks for my, or any anyone’s ID. You are right, if one cannot provide the documentation necessary at the Seven Eleven, they can just walk out of the store. If a person cannot provide the documentation to prove they are in the country legally, they can just walk out of the country. It doesn’t matter the outcome of the failure to provide documentation my point was that any claim that ID checking violates the Constitution is disingenuous. <br /><br />In your final point you claim there is no federal power to demand documentation from any one at anytime. I bet the folks in the chicken plant you referenced would disagree with you.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-12697303442838975232010-06-01T18:03:23.823-06:002010-06-01T18:03:23.823-06:001. "I point out that at the air port all sort...1. "I point out that at the air port all sorts of people are checked screened even though so far only one religious type seems prone to use planes as WMD."<br /><br />Almost as if you can't tell someone's "religious type" or terrorist tendencies by looking!<br /><br />2. "I point out, once again, that the Arizona law is quit specific that the stop can only be made for some criminal act is involved."<br /><br />You made that up. It says, "lawful stop, detention or arrest." Nothing about crime there.<br /><br />"No matter how many times you repeat the misinformation that they will be stopped just to check their immigration status, it doesn’t make that claim true."<br /><br />Well, that <i>was</i> a strawman. This has always been in the context of "legal contact", later<br />clarified to "lawful stop, detention or arrest." Stopping someone just to check immigration status doesn't qualify, so I've never been worried about that. Can't find any mention of it here.<br /><br />3. The law says nothing about "being stopped for a crime". That's your own interpolation. "Lawful stop, detention or arrest" doesn't mean crime. Are we talking past each other here? Do you have some sort of assumption you're not making explicit? The police can make lawful stops for many reasons, only some of which are suspected crimes.<br /><br />4. Criminal copyright infringment certainly exists, but it's a much more massive sort of violation than my example covered. My example was not a crime--although illegal, which was the purpose of the example. And somehow you took it to be an attack on copyright!<br /><br />"And I continue to ask what civil liberty is being encroached on by the Federal Government that is not offended by the clerk at Seven Eleven"<br /><br />Obviously you meant the state government here. And the answer is <b>the right to left alone</b>. If you seek to purchase materials controlled by law, <i>you're</i> initiating the contact, and can simply leave the store without buying them if you're unable or unwilling to provide the required documentation.<br /><br />Then you mention "the federal power to demand documentation from any of us at any time". I confess I don't know what this is referring to. There is no such federal power.truth to powernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-82718123394260961562010-06-01T16:51:05.237-06:002010-06-01T16:51:05.237-06:00(paragraph 3)
I am not sure why you would oppose a...(paragraph 3)<br />I am not sure why you would oppose a law allowing/requiring local police to check classroom test books for copyright infringement, perhaps because you have never written a text book nor had your lively hood stolen by a photo copy happy school teacher. I am force to wonder how you feel about laws against any kind of theft. Why can there be a law against stealing socks from Wal Mart or apples from my back yard, but not to protect someone’s intellectual property or artistic creations? I’m just asking – and again hope you will forward your wisdom to Disney, so they will take that “annoying lie” off the shows I buy for my grandkids. Please re-read the 10th amendment and then show me were the Constitution prohibits states from enforcing copyright law or from exercising administrative prerogative to support federal immigration law. <br /><br />(On why anyone should mind the police asking to see proof of citizenship.) You say it is none of their business. In Arizona, it is now – there is a law that says it is. The Federal Government asks for state documentation all the time. Just try to get a passport or a federal job without a driver’s license. And by the way, states ask for federal documents all the time too. Try to get a job without a S. S. number or a green card! And the federal government may well have a right to check out your County Birth Certificate. So much for your definition of separation of powers!<br /><br />(On Affirmative action) Affirmative action is not a red herring. I agree that it is wrong, but it is also wrong to condone racial profiling in one place and use it as an incitement to mayhem in another. <br /><br />(On asking were X right is delineated in the Constitution) This doesn’t seem so unusual to me. You seem to be playing a game of semantics here. I can tell you were the right to free speech; the right to free exercise of religion and of the press, of assembly and petition are delineated. Were the right to bear arms is protected and the right to due process is defended. Perhaps you want to mince words here – but I would argue that the majority of Americans would understand my words without your clarification. Still, I will change my question to “Where is the government’s power to infringe on the right not to carry ID delineated in the constitution.” <br /><br />And I continue to ask what civil liberty is being encroached on by the Federal Government that is not offended by the clerk at Seven Eleven, and again ask why those marching against the Arizona law are not also marching against the federal power to demand documentation from any of us at any time?Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-73042362808757523332010-06-01T16:49:43.031-06:002010-06-01T16:49:43.031-06:00Truth to power,
Whoohoo is right. Thank you for ...Truth to power,<br /><br />Whoohoo is right. Thank you for your response and for your willingness to debate. In such a clash – one that leads to truth – no one can lose. <br /><br />Let me attempt to deal with your arguments point by point. <br /><br />1. I would point out that neither Abdul Mutallab nor Read attempted to fly their planes into buildings. However, in that they surly intended mass destruction, I will accept your criticism. Perhaps it would make my point just as well to have said: <br /><br />I point out that at the air port all sorts of people are checked screened even though so far only one religious type seems prone to use planes as WMD.<br /><br />My point, that they are checking everyone still stands unchallenged.<br /><br />2. You claim that “any lawful stop” includes those having nothing to do with criminal conduct at all. I point out, once again, that the Arizona law is quit specific that the stop can only be made for some criminal act is involved. Once they have been stopped for a crime, then the “reasonable suspicion” for illegal status kicks in. No matter how many times you repeat the misinformation that they will be stopped just to check their immigration status, it doesn’t make that claim true. And that once they have been lawfully stopped for ANOTHER reason, the police acting in their legitimate administrative role, will have an obligation to establish immigration status. <br /><br />3. Being stopped for a crime allows the ID check. Detention is not arrest – and turning suspected illegals over to ICE not punishment. However, will now be the obligation of any Arizona law officer. <br /><br />4. (paragraph one) <br />I stress with you that Arizona is not enforcing any law. They are turning the unauthorized aliens over to the Federal Government who then should enforce the law. I am disappointed that in many cases they will not – that is Mr. Obama’s big failure. Something he has the power and the sworn obligation to fix. Sham on him.<br /><br />(paragraph two) <br />I must admit that I am not 100% sure about copyright law as it applies to school teachers – surely a protected class – but I’ve watched enough videos to remember this warning: <br /><br />“Warning Federal Law provides sever civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes, or video dics. Criminal copyright infringement is investigated by the FBI and constitutes a felony with a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and or a $250,000 fine.” <br /><br />Federal and state governments spend a lot of time and money enforcing copy right laws. Perhaps you sould contact Disney and insist they quit referring to copyright infringers as criminals. Seems to me, we are about to have a trade war with China over this very crime. I don’t care to reread my entire post, but I would be glad to have you point out were I have referred to illegal or unauthorized aliens as criminals.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-29885512305837094952010-06-01T09:00:31.987-06:002010-06-01T09:00:31.987-06:00Woohoo! Once more unto the breach, dear friends.
F...Woohoo! Once more unto the breach, dear friends.<br />Finally some responses to the actual questions, so we can have debate again.<br /><br />1. "So far only one racial type seems prone to use planes as WMD."<br />Obviously airport screening is concerned with much more than just the use of planes as WMD. They're also looking for the likes of Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab; "racial" profiling is not so effective.<br /><br />2. More misunderstanding. The Arizona law goes well beyond asking arrestees for ID. The standard is "reasonable suspicion" of illegal status in a "lawful contact"—later clarified to "lawful stop, detention or arrest." In other words, not just arrests. Any lawful stop, including those having nothing to do with criminal conduct at all.<br /><br />3. Under this law, what allows the police to request ID is "reasonable suspicion". Obviously the suspicion can't be based on not having ID before they've asked for ID. So the question of what it can be based on is still unanswered.<br /><br />4. Here you misrepresent Dan completely. He didn't say aything about "the prerogative to challenge the federal government’s lack of enforcement of laws". By all means, let all the states that care raise a ruckus with the feds about the messed up immigration situation. But they have no more right to start enforcing federal immigration law than federal tax law.<br /><br />There is a significant distinction between "illegal" and "criminal". Many things that are against the law are <i>civil violations</i> rather than criminal ones. One common example is illegal immigration. Another is copyright infringement. It's illegal for a teacher to photocopy a textbook to avoid having to purchase legal copies for his class. But he hasn't committed a crime. He won't be arrested, imprisoned, or fined for it. Rather, the copyright holder may sue for damages. Now that the distinction has been explained to you, I trust you'll stop referring to illegal aliens as "criminals".<br /><br />I would be decidedly opposed to a law allowing/requiring the local police to check classroom textbooks for copyright infringement, because it's a federal civil infraction and not a state crime or local ordinance violation. Even if a state (say New York, California, or Washington, with influential copyright interests) were to decide the feds have failed to enforce copyright law properly, that would not give the state the power to usurp the enforcement authority. The 10th Amendment is about those powers not explicitly granted to the federal government. So it doesn't touch immigration or copyright law, which are explicitly federal.<br /><br />Why would anyone mind if the police asked to see proof of citizenship? Cause it's none of their business, that's why. Just like the bureaucrat at the DMV has no business asking to see my federal income tax return, and a census taker has no right to demand to see my public library card. Separation of powers, you know.<br /><br />Affirmative action is a red herring that has been waved around a couple of times in this conversation. Affirmative action is inappropriate discrimination; it's wrong.<br /><br />It's pretty unusual to ask "Where is right X delineated in the constitution?" The more usual form is "Where is the government's power to infringe on right X delineated in the constitution?" This is because our rights are prior to and independent of the constitution, which gives the government authority to infringe on them in enumerated ways for the common good. I'm not saying the law is unconstitutional due to making citizens carry papers; I'm saying we should seriously question the further encroachment on our civil liberties.truth to powernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-51333031297100201662010-05-31T17:47:38.015-06:002010-05-31T17:47:38.015-06:00I would ask you to consider the questions I have a...I would ask you to consider the questions I have asked you – which remain unanswered. <br /><br />1. Why would a car load of white kids care if they were asked to show they were Americans?<br /><br />2. Why would a car load of brown Americans [mind]?<br /><br />3. Why is “racial profiling” tolerated in pursuit of affirmative action?<br /><br />4. Why should SB1070 bother anyone who has a problem with racism?<br /><br />5. What possible good is it going to do for Obama to send 1200 unarmed guardsmen to the Mexican Boarder?<br /><br />6. How will guardsmen on the boarder be able to find reason for action beyond reasonable suspicion to question those they meet along the boarder. <br /><br />7. How would a policeman get to the level of probable cause in investigating a human trafficking crime? There is no reasoning with you, because you refuse to listen, you dodge, then come back again with the same questions that have been answered.<br /><br />8. Would it be humiliating for chaste young women to be required to give evidence that they are not sex slaves?<br /><br />9. Would “humiliating” American Citizens in order to stop human smuggling be reasonable police action?<br /><br />10. Is being aware of someone’s race when we study their role in the history of our Country racist?<br /><br />11. Is racial profiling racism?<br /><br />12. Is it a good idea to screen everyone, innocent as well as guilty, at the airport?<br /><br />13. Why shouldn’t everyone in Arizona be required to prove their legal status (when involved in a crime)? <br /><br />14. I understand that reasonable suspicion is a step in developing probable cause; can you help me understand why this supposition is wrong?<br /><br />15. If a police office is suspicious that a crime is being committed, what does he do next?<br /><br />16. What makes asking people to prove their citizenship racial profiling?<br /><br />17. Just because evil people in South Africa demanded to see peoples papers under Apartheid, why does that make it always evil to ask for papers?<br /><br />18. Where is the right not to carry ID delineated in the Constitution?<br /><br />19. What are the boundaries set on such ID checking?<br /><br />20. Where are the protests against the Federal Government for demanding people produce their papers? <br /><br />21. Where are the boycotts against America for federal ID checks?<br /><br />22. Of the multitude of crimes that make people nervous when they are pulled over by the police, how many are the police allowed to investigate once they have made the stop?<br /><br />23. Because the families of criminals suffer when those criminals are punished, should we stop punishing criminals?<br /><br />24. I ask why the 10th amendment does not apply to Arizona’s efforts to defend it boarders.<br />25. I asked you to show me were the federal authority to stop and check anyone in America’s citizenship at anytime.<br /><br />26. I asked you to show me the outrage against this authority referenced in question #25.<br /><br />27. I asked you to explain to me how the federal statute overrides the 10th amendment in dealing with nonresident aliens.<br /><br />There are other questions I might ask, if you were inclined to answer.<br /><br />Why will Obama meet with the President of Mexico but cannot find time for the Governor of Arizona?Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-87489789239210962692010-05-31T17:47:05.612-06:002010-05-31T17:47:05.612-06:00Now to your most damning accusation against me – t...Now to your most damning accusation against me – that I have not answered your questions.<br /><br />1. The first question you ask is – if a police man stops a car load of white teens is he going to detain them to determine their immigration status? I answer, if they have committed another crime he can and should, I point out that at the air port all sorts of people are checked screened even though so far only one racial type seems prone to use planes as WMD.<br /><br />2. You ask for a variable, other than skin color or language, which would lead to a police officer asking a criminal to prove his right to be in America. I answer, just ask every arrested criminal to give some ID. The Arizona law does not allow any demand of ID until after another reason for investigation has been established. (You say that you have zero problem with checking the immigration status of anyone arrested for any other crime. This is exactly what the Arizona Law requires. People cannot be stopped unless there is another crime involved. <br /><br />3. You re-ask your question – What would be reasonable suspicion if illegal status? I re-answer; not having ID.<br /><br />4. You ask which part of the constitution gives states the prerogative to challenge the federal government’s lack of enforcement of laws. (I suggested the 10th Amendment.)<br /><br />It seems this is the only question you are asking. I keep answering and you refuse either to accept or refute my reply. Federal agents can ask anyone to prove legal status without any other crime in play, and you say you have no problem asking people who are involved in a crime the question. Since the Arizona law requires that some other infraction be involved I have trouble seeing your problem.<br /><br />You point out that “what we are talking about here [being illegally in the US] is not a crime. Therefore checking ID to determine it is not finding anyone guilty of a crime – it is simply providing to turn such people over to the Federal Government. Of course I am forced to wonder, as a layman, why we call such people “illegal” aliens if their being here is not illegal.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-55475182494876382762010-05-31T17:44:54.486-06:002010-05-31T17:44:54.486-06:006. Here is where it is clear that you are not fami...6. Here is where it is clear that you are not familiar with reasonable suspicion and what requirements and abilities it entails. (Who is it clear to?)<br /><br />(your argument that Mexican isn't a race is a straw man, I don't believe there is such thing as race period, as many anthropologists argue, only cultures and ethnicities, but in this country targeting someone because they are hispanic would be racial profiling.) (My arguments are straw men?)<br /><br />7. By the way. You can say all you want that you aren't accusing me of anything, but your words speak up to loudly. (Are you calling me a liar again?)<br /><br />This is naive, and proves what I have been saying, you do not understand the law enforcement process. (And naïve?)<br /><br />8. Any person from AZ that says they can tell the difference by looking at them is a liar, plain and simple. (More accusations of lies?)<br /><br />9. Just because you two, two white males, have no problem with cops racial profiling, doesn't make it right. (You attack me on my race and accuse me of supporting racial profiling.)<br /><br />10. I saw his combat boots comment as an example of something that has nothing to do with the argument, kind of like your example of uniforms. (Now my examples have nothing to do with the argument.)<br /><br />11. You have continually belittled my knowledge of the law and statutory construction. Questioned my 'study' of the Constitution etc..<br />Thats fine. Please continue to ask the questions I have already answered, and ignore the questions I have asked. (Here you choose to ignore my repeated efforts to answer your questions and condemn me for questioning you.)<br /><br />12. There is no reasoning with you, because you refuse to listen, you dodge, then come back again with the same questions that have been answered. (I can’t be reasoned with? What does that say about me? You accuse me of dodging and failing to recognize your answers.)<br /><br /><br />Dan, these comments don’t hurt my feeling, they serve to spice up the arguments, arguments that are aimed at finding the truth.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-21469488971950966662010-05-31T17:44:22.911-06:002010-05-31T17:44:22.911-06:00Dan,
First, for the record; I have great respect...Dan, <br /><br />First, for the record; I have great respect for your intellect and your accomplishments. I have watched you grow from boy to man and even falter myself in thinking that I have played some small roll in your remarkable growth and success. I rejoiced in your greatest accomplishment, marrying above yourself, and in the coming of your beautiful children. My legal education is pretty much restricted to reading “To Kill a Mocking Bird” and watching “Gideon’s Trumpet”. <br /><br />In “To Kill a Mocking Bird” the children watch as Atticus and the county prosecutor clash inthe court room and then walk out arm in arm at the recess. Dill is confused; Scout, on the other-hand, accepts the clash of idea as the natural process of discovering the truth. If I challenged your comments – it was only in pursuit of truth.<br /><br />In “Gideon’s Trumpet”, Abe Fortas explains to the Supreme Court that even the best of attorneys, Clarence Darrow for example, needs an attorney. My reference to “my lawyer” was meant as a complement to the difficulty of dealing with your arguments. I did not intend to belittle you. <br /><br />Second, I would suggest you can dish it out but don’t seem to take it very well. I present some of your invectives against me and my opinions; I find them challenging. I do not choose to be personally affronted.<br /><br />1. "AZ's law is ridiculous, and should be abhorred by all who have a problem with racism." (Here you argue that I have no problem with racism.)<br /><br />2. "You say you would love to be corrected. I highly doubt that considering the flame with which you responded to me." (Here you doubt my sincerity and accuse me of a flaming response – what ever that means.)<br /><br />3. "Okay, so, now we have our basis. I have read the law, so you can quit being condescending on that note." (Now I am accused of being condencending.)<br /><br />4. "you should have already known that, so maybe we can bypass all the vitriol on that basis." (Me spew vitriol?) <br /><br />5. "My only conclusion is that not being as conversant with the legal terminology, or the nicities of criminal procedure, they don't understand the racial ramifications. Or, maybe, as you claim of me, many of these people who have no problem with the bill merely get their opinions from the Sean Hannity's and Glenn Beck's of the world." (I suppose I am lumped in here with those who are not conversant with legal terminology and even worse - who watch Glenn Beck!)Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-49877058254050614422010-05-30T21:14:45.114-06:002010-05-30T21:14:45.114-06:00Lysis,
Your profession is noble. Unfortunately, ...Lysis,<br /><br />Your profession is noble. Unfortunately, you are paid by the state of Utah and not the federal government. I appreciate the respect you give me for working so hard. It is, unfortunately, not enough. The cuts to your package are coming. It isn't leagal for Utah to print money. Only Obama has that right.<br /><br />Isn't Utah the same state you work for, Dan?<br /><br />Thank you for the complement about my point. It is apparent that Obama and the government have abrogated their responsibility to maintain our borders. The important question to ask now, is why?<br /><br />The illegals represent a huge voting block. The democrats want those votes. The republicans want those votes. The democrats believe that the end justifies the means. The republicans seem to naively believe they can still capture that block. Lost in the debate is the best interest of the American people.<br /><br />Dan and those who believe as he does fall right into the trap that the democrats lay. We argue about profiling rather than argueing and exposing why the Obama regime is unwilling to enforce our borders. I don't understand.<br /><br />I do not suggest that our Constitution should be trodden upon. To the contray, the Constitution must be upheld as the law of the land. I don't care about profiling. It is not racist. <br /><br />Have we forgotten how the times square bomber was apprehended? In his flight, he made it past every security checkpoint. He was on the plane, ready to flea the contry when a ticket agent profiled the man and notified authorities. The Obama regime sang its own praises upon his capture. Let him go! He was apprehended illeagaly! He was profiled!<br /><br />If race is really the issue behind the regime's ploy to continue to ignore enforcement of our borders, the democrats need to be consistent. Affirmative action needs to be completely abolished. It is racist.<br /><br />Dan falls into the trap the democrats have so carefully laid. Divide the people with silly argument while attempting to continue to step on their national soverignty and on the constitution. Fortunately, the people still have the ability to stop the madness. Even though I only have B.S. after my name, my vote and my opinion count as much as the J.D. that follows others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-44032825770445149852010-05-30T21:10:17.174-06:002010-05-30T21:10:17.174-06:00Well. This has officially gotten nowhere.
I unde...Well. This has officially gotten nowhere.<br /><br />I understand you take 'your lawyer's' word over mine. You have continually belittled my knowledge of the law and statutory construction. Questioned my 'study' of the Constitution etc..<br /><br />Thats fine. Please continue to ask the questions I have already answered, and ignore the questions I have asked.<br /><br />You want this to be a political question, so you can draw you nice bright line in the sand and crow at the demise of a President you can't stand. I don't see it that way. You continue to call undocumented workers criminals, when there is no crime in being here undocumented. There is no reasoning with you, because you refuse to listen, you dodge, then come back again with the same questions that have been answered.<br /><br />You may feel confident in your opinion, my hope is that some that read your blog may actual read the things that I posted, for more than just trying to find a quote here or there to fight about, but actually read the information given, without assuming that I am a stupid attorney that doesn't understand anything I have studied, as you clearly do.<br /><br />Either way, this conversation has run its course. I rest my argument with the things I have already said, and the points I have already made. You can continue to characterize them as race bating, and politically motivated. I'll let people who read them judge for themselves. I stand by them.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12273702014991706168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-85366382504227955462010-05-30T21:09:36.455-06:002010-05-30T21:09:36.455-06:00Dan and Truth,
I’m not surprised that you could n...Dan and Truth,<br /><br />I’m not surprised that you could not grasp the link between screaming racism over Arizona’s immigration law and screaming Nazi about wearing uniforms. My point, and I am confident many who read here at the Agora got it, is this: when people cannot give reason for their actions by logical support for their positions, they inevitably retreat to scare tactics. Reliant upon the ignorance of so many, they whip up emotions. Hence, unable to refute the facts about uniforms in schools, the opponents scream Nazi. Now when others cannot find any legitimate fault with Arizona’s “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”, they scream racism. <br /><br />Dan, <br /><br />You ask for the part of the Constitution which “says if the feds don’t fulfill their obligations to our standard, we can take back the power and vest it in the State”. Rather, let me suggest you examine the 10th Amendment. [Perhaps glossed over in your classes or research on the constitution.], and then point out to me where immigration responsibility is delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and where that power is prohibited to the states. <br /><br />I did have a chance to speak to my lawyer. He suggests that states do have a right to check legal residency under the 10th amendment and that while states cannot kick illegals out of the country, they can detain anyone (note that detain is different from arrest) and require them to prove their legal status. This would be very simple, requiring no other documentation than a Social Security Number. All such a person needs to do is give their legitimate social security number. If they cannot prove legal residency they can, as the Arizona Law requires, be turned over to ICE. <br /><br />My lawyer also points out that the federal statute allows federal agents to stop anyone at anytime with no other suspicion than one concerning legal status and require them to prove their citizenship. That, under these administrative powers, such federal offices can hold anyone, you or me included, for a reasonable amount of time until one can produce such proof, and hand those who can’t over to ICE for deportation. In fact the law obligates them to do so.<br /><br />As in countless cases, Arizona’s law works in concert with federal law, and sets far higher standards on its enforcing officers. Remember, no state of local law officer in Arizona can become involved with anyone until there has been a legitimate interaction based on an infraction of another law. <br /><br />Please show me where the federal immigration authority noted above originates in the constitution and show me where the outrage against it, in the press and the mob, for its far more intrusive powers granted to federal agents is. <br /><br />**Section 8 of Article I does allow for uniform Rules of Naturalization [and to] make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers . . . *** <br /><br />But show me why this should override the tenth amendment in this case. Since, (1 the state is not in any contradiction with the Federal Statue and (2 in fact embraces it, follows it, and relies upon it to enforce any action.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-45390777119131622862010-05-30T20:19:52.676-06:002010-05-30T20:19:52.676-06:00Truth to power,
I would assume that the raid on S...Truth to power,<br /><br />I would assume that the raid on Swift and Company etc. was carried out under the federal authority I mentioned above. I suggest you direct your anger against the feds, and particularly the President who consistently find themselves required to see that the laws of this country are faithfully executed. <br /><br />I imagine the wives and children of drug pushers, of those who embezzle monies for local school districts, along with any number of the relations and friends of criminals of all stripes, find themselves in desperate straits – perhaps on the verge of heart break – when their kin face justice. What is your point? Because the families of criminals might be upset, we should stop enforcing the law? <br /><br />Let me emphatically state that the fault that we have so many families in the situation you mention is that of the federal government. It has completely failed in its responsibility to maintain the integrity of our borders. I believe that something must be done to accommodate the 12+ million “illegals” who are already in the country. However, the border must be closed and laws put in place to make the situation manageable. I maintain that selective outrage against Arizona is irrational and politically motivated. <br /><br />I take this chance to point out to you that the “right to remain silent” does not preclude the police from making arrests, asking questions, and proving guilt. <br /><br />I have found the second amendment; it clearly states that the people have a right to bear arms. You have yet to point out to me the amendment guaranteeing my right to go about without ID. The forth and fifth amendments protect illegal aliens as well as all people wherever they come from when they come in contact with American Law officers. That will continue to be the case in Arizona after the 29th of July. Accepting, as I now do, that officers of the law have every right to proceed with their duties once they have a reasonable suspicion, I continue to beg with you, or our learned friend, to convince me otherwise.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-65853839872763783442010-05-30T17:02:52.739-06:002010-05-30T17:02:52.739-06:00The bit about the boots was a response to mirror t...The bit about the boots was a response to mirror the irrelevant piece on uniforms, Nazis, and fear. And now you have returned to the subject at hand--well done.<br /><br />I have always been consistent in my frustration with the feds for making really bad immigration laws and failing to enforce them.<br /><br />Why do illegals have such fear of being detected? Because the price is high, and the risk nonzero. In December 2006, for example, a well-coordinated raid captured hundreds at Swift & Company plants in Hyrum, Utah and five other states. Spouses and children of those illegal workers were left to fend for themselves. Such operations are few and far between, but they're well-publicized and successfully strike fear in the hearts of the wetbacks already here. They know they're not "home free".<br /><br />"If only wetbacks were without papers, wouldn't that make for less suspicion of American Citizens of all color and language?"<br /><br />Yes. And without "the right to remain silent", fewer criminals would escape punishment. Without the right to bear arms, we would have fewer gun deaths. Without freedom of speech, people would be offended less often.<br /><br />I've never been interested in having a firearm, but I demand the preservation of the Second Amendment. I never leave the house without ID, but I'm not willing to give up <b>the right to do so</b> in order to help the local police catch violators of federal civil rules.<br /><br />I make no claims about the prevalence of bad cops. I assume they're uncommon. But I'm grateful for the Fourth and Fifth Amendments all the same.truth to powernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-42357510809448849082010-05-30T16:41:03.256-06:002010-05-30T16:41:03.256-06:00I'd love to see the part of the constitution t...I'd love to see the part of the constitution that says if the feds don't fulfill their obligations to our standard, we can take back the power and vest it in the State. I must have missed that in all the classes and research I have done with and about the Constitution.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12273702014991706168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-42578042156862450952010-05-30T16:40:12.558-06:002010-05-30T16:40:12.558-06:00I saw his combat boots comment as an example of so...I saw his combat boots comment as an example of something that has nothing to do with the argument, kind of like your example of uniforms.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12273702014991706168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-78067405863393490162010-05-30T15:11:03.215-06:002010-05-30T15:11:03.215-06:00Jeff,
You have come to the most cogent point. Ob...Jeff,<br /><br />You have come to the most cogent point. Obama, the Federal Government, all those who have the responsibility of maintaining our borders, have abrogated their responsibility. There are either no laws to protect or no will to enforce them. Thus, my original point about Obama’s failure and the political exploitation of Arizona’s attempt to do what the President and his cabinet refuse to even attempt. It is indeed like the oil spill in the gulf. Rather than deal with the problem they seek to vilify others and burry their on failure in a pile of prevarication. <br /><br />I don’t think there is anything inherently evil in having to carry identification. If that is what it takes to protect our country, I am left to wonder why there is an issue.<br /><br />As for your frustration at government job holders taking your hard earned money; last week the percent of American total income paid out to the public sector surpassed that earned in the private sector for the first time in history. Keep up the good work.<br /><br />Truth to power, <br /><br />I understand your challenge with your friends. At school I am considered a conservative and at church a liberal. I promise you I do not change. <br /><br />I have also heard the idea that once one gets into America they are home free. If that is true, why do “illegals” have such fear of being detected? Why is there a danger that people will be deported? Are there no penalties of being in America without a visa? If not, why do we even issue green cards? <br /><br />I have some more questions for you. Why would caring ID weaken the rules that protect Americans from bad police? Where are all these bad policemen anyway?<br /><br />I think you paint with rather a broad stroke when you claim that “Hispanic Americans distrust the police more than Anglos.” Do they distrust them more than African Americans? <br /><br />If every “legal” America carried an ID card, wouldn’t that preclude the wetback suspicion you claim so many police have and therefore the reason Hispanic Americans have for distrusting the police. If only wetbacks were without papers, wouldn’t that make for less suspicion of American Citizens of all color and language? This would also illuminate the “hogwash” you find in Constantia’s claim – no policeman would have to guess. <br /><br />So far I see a lot of good and no real harm from requiring all American to establish and verify their citizenship. It would also eliminate the so called “suspicion of being brown” you seem to be so adverse to. <br /><br />As for your last comment on my mother’s boots – I assume this is an “ad hominem” attack. In my experience, it that indicates one has nothing to say against the argument.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-43198453381576657972010-05-30T11:00:09.565-06:002010-05-30T11:00:09.565-06:00Your mother wears combat boots.Your mother wears combat boots.truth to powernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-49466627681179739162010-05-29T23:33:34.746-06:002010-05-29T23:33:34.746-06:00It has been demonstrated by research and attested ...It has been demonstrated by research and attested by long experience that schools that require uniforms better serve their students. Poor schools that adopt uniforms improve; so do good schools that do the same. With this in mind the administration at my children’s Junior High recommended to the community that their school adopt uniforms. A meeting was held. I was not in attendance; my wife represented our family and told me the tale. <br /><br />The discussion became quite heated. It seems that many were convinced that uniforms would destroy the freedom and individuality of the students. This is, of course, ridiculous. The most free and individualistic group of young people I know wear uniforms 24/7 all summer long. If anything, uniforms allow those in them to develop other methods of displaying their uniqueness other than with their cloths. But the fact is the Nazis have given uniforms a bad name. One outspoken opponent was more than willing to ignore the evidence. He was convinced that if his child were to put on a uniform she would be transformed in to a Hitler Youth. The Nazis wore uniforms he snarled. My wife pointed that the guys who beat the Nazis wore uniforms too. Unfortunately it was too late for reason to prevail. Visions of Auschwitz and goose stepping jack boots filled the frightened minds in the room and the mob voted against reason and against their children’s education. <br /><br />Fear comes when reason goes away.Lysishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10669231502705943487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8382259.post-52269446002916343692010-05-29T22:55:01.280-06:002010-05-29T22:55:01.280-06:00"Unlike apartheid South Africa, neither being..."Unlike apartheid South Africa, neither being nervous in a car nor being brown in the wrong side of town is a crime in America. That is a significant difference that those who are using fear and distortion to gin up political power hide with hyperbole and those who are captivated by political correctness pretend does not exist."<br /><br />Captivated by political correctness?! It's always funny to me how my progressive friends think I'm a right-wing nutjob and my conservative friends think I'm a liberal wiener. As for political correctness, I have no problem calling illegals from south of the border "wetbacks". I complain all the time about the proliferation of illegal immigration. But even their presence here isn't a crime--outside of Arizona.<br /><br />However, the big deal for me is the tremendous weakening of the rules that protect Americans from bad police. Not that I'm afraid of lawful contact with Arizona's finest myself--I'm a gringo.<br /><br />The two jobs I have held since 1999 have both involved daily personal contact--face-to-face, on the phone, and by mail--with Hispanic people. There's been a good mix of citizens, legal aliens, and <i>mojados</i> (they nearly always come right out and tell me their status). In other words, I have a lot of experience with all three categories. <br /><br />I have no idea how constantia's magical wetback radar works. With all the experience I have, I can guarantee you I would perform no better than chance in a random test. Constantia's "Not knowing English could be a start to suspicion" reads like bigotry, but is probably just ignorance. There is no language requirement for legal entry, and the language requirements for naturalization are not, shall we say, stringent. Indeed, plenty of native-born citizens of the first couple of generations have a poor grasp of English. As for "evasiveness", guess what? Hispanic Americans distrust the police more than Anglos. Don't we all know why? There's no reason for that distrust to affect only the wetbacks, especially if the police treat all Hispanics like wetbacks.<br /><br />Constantia says, "I would bet that most people in the state of Arizona could point out with some degree of certainty the illegal immigrants as opposed to legal ones." In my informed opinion, this is utter hogwash. Granted, my experience is with people in California and Utah. Maybe there's something special about Arizona.<br /><br />I really must insist on an answer to Dan's question: "What would be reasonable suspicion of illegal status? In what way would a cop come to this conclusion without taking into account ethnicity?" <br /><br />If "being brown" has nothing to do with reasonable suspicion, what is it?truth to powernoreply@blogger.com